Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Advisory on Exotic Live Species, Extends Option Period in Landmark Wildlife Protection Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of an Advisory on the import of exotic live species and the declaration of stock. The court, while dismissing a Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification, extended the option period for citizens to avail themselves of the Advisory. The judgment, delivered by Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol, emphasized the need for cautioning the public about the consequences of non-compliance with the Advisory. The decision holds importance for pet owners, traders, farm owners, breeders, and wildlife enthusiasts across the country.

Quoting from the judgment, Justice Krishna Murari stated, "Once a declaration within the window of six months as provided under the Advisory is made, the exotic live species, including its progeny, the declarant or transferee(s) are fully exempt from explaining the source of exotic live species. The exotic live species which is declared or its progeny, are not liable to confiscation or seizure by any Central Agency or State Agency. Consequently, the declarant or the transferee(s) of such declarant will be immune from prosecution under any civil, fiscal and criminal statute by any Central or State Agency. Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity."

The case revolved around a challenge to the legality and validity of the Advisory issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on 11th June 2020. The Advisory aimed to streamline the process of importing, exporting, and possessing exotic live species. Several High Courts had previously upheld the Advisory, considering it as an Amnesty Scheme.

The recent amendment to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 brought exotic animals listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) within the purview of the Act. The introduction of Chapter VB enforced provisions of CITES and affected animals listed in Schedule IV of the Act.

While discussing the implications of the amendment, Justice Sanjay Karol noted, "An Amendment Act cannot post facto criminalize possession. It is well settled that retroactive criminal legislation, being violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, is prohibited." The court further stressed the importance of treating those who benefited from the optional Advisory equally with those who did not, as the latter were not explicitly informed of the consequences of non-compliance.

In light of the judgment, the court recommended that the government extend the Advisory to the citizens for a further reasonable period, cautioning them about the ramifications of not making the necessary registration or declaration. The court also highlighted that the Rules under Section 49M(9) of the amended Act had not yet been framed, and their consideration was necessary while framing the rules.

Date of Decision: 27th March, 2023

SWETAB KUMAR  VS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST